FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Reform - global heating
Reform - global heating
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
How do you view Reform's view on human created global heating? A denial that it even exists? They've typically been repeating a mantra that climate change is natural and comes and goes in cycles, avoiding the over 99% certainty amongst experts that this heating now has been caused by us.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you view Reform's view on human created global heating? A denial that it even exists? They've typically been repeating a mantra that climate change is natural and comes and goes in cycles, avoiding the over 99% certainty amongst experts that this heating now has been caused by us."
That might be Richard Tice's view, but I see no evidence that the wider Reform party shares that view.
What they do say is that it's cheaper to adapt to climate change in the short term than it is to try to prevent it. They're promoting the replacement of fossil fuels with nuclear power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I believe that yes climate change is cyclical geoscience has taught us this, however whilst global warming was always inevitable humans have accelerated the process by a unknown timescale.
BUT and here's the heavy bit:
As humans are a product of natural evolution who's to say that us being here accelerating the process wasn't always part of it anyway 🤯 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 51 weeks ago
|
If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
"
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us. "
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 51 weeks ago
|
Reform adhere to Trump's playbook - just spout any populist nonsense whether it's true or not, then concoct some half-baked policies that stand no chance of working. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate. "
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... just spout any populist nonsense whether it's true or not, then concoct some half-baked policies that stand no chance of working."
You mean like one party's policy to improve the economy and increase wealth by "giving investors the certainty they need to fuel growth". The party that then increased employers National Insurance, increased the minimum wage, and increased employee protection. That policy stood no chance of working.
You might agree with the changes that they've made, but they're not in line with the stated policy, which was clearly just populist nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector. "
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it. "
And this shows your faulty understanding and thinking? So you’re saying the natural cycle has paused itself since the Industrial revolution? How did it know to do that? Did it read about steam power on the internet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it.
And this shows your faulty understanding and thinking? So you’re saying the natural cycle has paused itself since the Industrial revolution? How did it know to do that? Did it read about steam power on the internet? "
No, the natural variation has and will continue. But the heating is unequivocally and demonstrably caused by human. Looking at the data evidence breaks all causes very distinctly apart.
The time for argument about its causes is long now a distant memory. There were times of much less than the statistical significant certainty that we've had for several years. A lot of the shills funded by the oil lobby etc, had great influence then. We progressed. There's no uncertainty about the causes now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 51 weeks ago
|
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it.
And this shows your faulty understanding and thinking? So you’re saying the natural cycle has paused itself since the Industrial revolution? How did it know to do that? Did it read about steam power on the internet?
No, the natural variation has and will continue. But the heating is unequivocally and demonstrably caused by human. Looking at the data evidence breaks all causes very distinctly apart.
The time for argument about its causes is long now a distant memory. There were times of much less than the statistical significant certainty that we've had for several years. A lot of the shills funded by the oil lobby etc, had great influence then. We progressed. There's no uncertainty about the causes now. "
So what are you wanting to do about it exactly?
Have you done some cost/benefit analysis of how much it’s going to cost us and what the benefit is going to be? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it.
And this shows your faulty understanding and thinking? So you’re saying the natural cycle has paused itself since the Industrial revolution? How did it know to do that? Did it read about steam power on the internet?
No, the natural variation has and will continue. But the heating is unequivocally and demonstrably caused by human. Looking at the data evidence breaks all causes very distinctly apart.
The time for argument about its causes is long now a distant memory. There were times of much less than the statistical significant certainty that we've had for several years. A lot of the shills funded by the oil lobby etc, had great influence then. We progressed. There's no uncertainty about the causes now.
So what are you wanting to do about it exactly?
Have you done some cost/benefit analysis of how much it’s going to cost us and what the benefit is going to be?"
We should move away from oil as quickly as possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector. "
You forgot shipping 🚢 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it. "
So are you saying the sun has zero effect on global warming it must add to it know.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it.
So are you saying the sun has zero effect on global warming it must add to it know.
"
No. The contribution of all of the causes is fully attributed. You could refer to the IPCC data, if it helps reveal this clarity.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it.
And this shows your faulty understanding and thinking? So you’re saying the natural cycle has paused itself since the Industrial revolution? How did it know to do that? Did it read about steam power on the internet?
No, the natural variation has and will continue. But the heating is unequivocally and demonstrably caused by human. Looking at the data evidence breaks all causes very distinctly apart.
The time for argument about its causes is long now a distant memory. There were times of much less than the statistical significant certainty that we've had for several years. A lot of the shills funded by the oil lobby etc, had great influence then. We progressed. There's no uncertainty about the causes now. "
If it’s not paused as you have admitted, then it is still contributing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 51 weeks ago
|
"If one can’t do anything about it (which the UK can’t, being a tiny polluter and generally insignificant on the global stage) it doesn’t really matter whether it is real or not.
It's real. We're long past the point where there was any tiny bit of uncertainty. All countries have political power to effect global change. The current heating is caused by us, not any naturally occurring cycle.
Which tactical meansures we take, to improve energy resilience, ensure citizen and economic well-being, are down to us.
Two billion more people on the planet by 2080, a 25% increase. Mainly borne into emerging economies with aspirations of western living standards and consumption. All on top of what is gathering pace now.
Game over I’d suggest. But where and what it leads to is unknown. For the uk possibly an opportunity to grow more food in a warmer climate.
The global population grows by around 81 million a year at the moment and the growth rate is rising. So we’ll hit 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion before 2045 if nothing changes. No political party is talking about the impact of this and that’s not going to change either as it’s not a vote winner.
Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.
Yes of course we have had an impact, how much of an impact is not agreed upon and is kinda irrelevant. What matters is what’s done about it. Whatever the UK does or doesn’t do is also irrelevant. We are around 1% of the global total and even spending £2 trillion and hitting net zero will have no effect when other nations are increasing their emissions. Would be like taking a cup of water out of your kids paddling pool while someone else is pouring a bucket full of water in.
The vehicles are the biggest joke. Cars only produce a tiny portion of vehicle emissions, and waiting to EV has next to minimal impact when the electric to charge them is generated by burning methane.
There will never be electric HGVs with any kind of range to make them viable within my lifetime and it’s the trucks and airplanes that produce most carbon in the transport sector.
This bit shows your faulty understanding and thinking
'Global warming and cooling was happening in cycles for 2 billion years before humans got here and it will continue to happen no matter what we do.'
The current global heating is human caused. Natural effects and cycles are completely out of the picture and are not the cause of it.
And this shows your faulty understanding and thinking? So you’re saying the natural cycle has paused itself since the Industrial revolution? How did it know to do that? Did it read about steam power on the internet?
No, the natural variation has and will continue. But the heating is unequivocally and demonstrably caused by human. Looking at the data evidence breaks all causes very distinctly apart.
The time for argument about its causes is long now a distant memory. There were times of much less than the statistical significant certainty that we've had for several years. A lot of the shills funded by the oil lobby etc, had great influence then. We progressed. There's no uncertainty about the causes now.
So what are you wanting to do about it exactly?
Have you done some cost/benefit analysis of how much it’s going to cost us and what the benefit is going to be?
We should move away from oil as quickly as possible. "
But that’s just some pie in the sky aspiration, it’s not a costed plan. To be fair you are in the same boat as the British government.
It’s like saying “we should cure cancer”.
Is oil demand going down? Is coal use going down?
What’s actually happening on a global scale level is that use of all forms of energy is increasing, which is what one would expect as the population grows, people get richer, economies become more sophisticated etc.
So you can point to use of renewables increasing but that is alongside increase in use of fossil fuels as well, at a global level. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you view Reform's view on human created global heating? A denial that it even exists? They've typically been repeating a mantra that climate change is natural and comes and goes in cycles, avoiding the over 99% certainty amongst experts that this heating now has been caused by us.
That might be Richard Tice's view, but I see no evidence that the wider Reform party shares that view.
What they do say is that it's cheaper to adapt to climate change in the short term than it is to try to prevent it. They're promoting the replacement of fossil fuels with nuclear power."
Adapt to climate change? That’ll probably include batting off ever more boats full of people trying to escape the effects of climate change especially when it’s coupled with reduced foreign aid coming from the UK then won’t it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are "
The funny thing about Covid was the mass hysteria it induced whilst having a 1% case fatality rate, which projected globally meant around 80 million deaths. Sounds a lot, until you compare it to 8 billion humans in total. Hardly a threat to the species was it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are
The funny thing about Covid was the mass hysteria it induced whilst having a 1% case fatality rate, which projected globally meant around 80 million deaths. Sounds a lot, until you compare it to 8 billion humans in total. Hardly a threat to the species was it?
"
1% chance of dying if you got Covid, 100% chance of dying if you didn’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan 51 weeks ago
Kilkenny and Waterford |
"Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are "
Overpopulation definitely can be an issue in terms of resource and energy use but I tend to prefer the term overshoot as it covers far more than simple population size.
Recent paper in "Nature Climate Change" showed that the top 10% of the global population is responsible for 2/3 of the warming since 1990 and that's getting worse as more become richer and we increasingly normalise totally new and unsustainable ways of life that only a minority of the population enjoy.
Instead of putting people on equal footing to each other, we need to recognise that many have a far greater impact on the world than most others, as well as having more impact on how policy and economies are structured. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are
Overpopulation definitely can be an issue in terms of resource and energy use but I tend to prefer the term overshoot as it covers far more than simple population size.
Recent paper in "Nature Climate Change" showed that the top 10% of the global population is responsible for 2/3 of the warming since 1990 and that's getting worse as more become richer and we increasingly normalise totally new and unsustainable ways of life that only a minority of the population enjoy.
Instead of putting people on equal footing to each other, we need to recognise that many have a far greater impact on the world than most others, as well as having more impact on how policy and economies are structured. "
Reported the top 10% of adults hold 85% of global wealth
The bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% of the world's total wealth
Top 30% of adults hold 97% of the total wealth
The global average wealth per adult in 2022 was estimated at £63,700
Average Briton is worth £192,000 (ons), three times the global average. Most of that being equity in homes and savings in pension funds; as opposed to consumption.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are "
The poorest countries have the highest birth rates. Relying on aid from wealthier countries with lower birth rates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Global warming is caused by capitalist politicians.
They are the ones who encourage population and economic growth.
I have never wanted either."
Capitalism as we know it needs a reset, a serious change for any serious impact on global warming. That is not popular, won't be popular and hence will not be addressed. We need to go back to a simpler way of life. Capitalism only really feeds the wealthy off the back of a false belief through advertising and propaganda that one can climb the ladder.
It is ultimately due to its inherent flaws, including unsustainable practices, widening inequality, and a focus on short-term profit that neglects long-term societal and environmental consequences. I'd argue that the current system is unsustainable and needs to be reoriented towards a more inclusive and sustainable model.
How? Who? When? No idea but it would be better to plan and prepare and start the changes required rather than wait till its forced on us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan 51 weeks ago
Kilkenny and Waterford |
"Gonna be 16-18 billion people on this planet by the end of the century if nothing changes. That’s at least double what there is.
Double the housing
Double the energy required
Double the food required
All the Rainforests cut down to meet food demands. Even if we eradicate the use of oil, there will be nothing removing the carbon from the atmosphere and methane will become an even bigger problem.
The rare minerals and metals needed to make batteries will be in such short supply, only the mega rich will be able to afford personal transport.
We don’t need net zero, we need a virus that kills a couple of billion people every 20 years or so. Or to stop breeding at the level we are
The poorest countries have the highest birth rates. Relying on aid from wealthier countries with lower birth rates. "
Definitely get where you're coming from, but the global south actually gives far more to the global north than it receives, whether simply talking aid or talking trade as well. The global economy which primarily focuses on the economies of richer countries is utterly dependent on getting cheap goods and manufacturing from the poorer countries of the periphery, and a lot of modern day finance has been built up to ensure that remains constant, especially when talking about the "international centre for settlement of investment disputes" through the world bank.
The "we give lots of aid to them" narrative is nice to think about, but it avoids looking at how much their societies have been structured and manipulated by powerful influences since the era of colonialism broke down, where at a time where many developed economies were fearing an end to their access to cheap goods and manpower, new financial organisations and rules were brought in to retain that control but to a much more subtle extent.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan 51 weeks ago
Kilkenny and Waterford |
"
Global warming is caused by capitalist politicians.
They are the ones who encourage population and economic growth.
I have never wanted either.
Capitalism as we know it needs a reset, a serious change for any serious impact on global warming. That is not popular, won't be popular and hence will not be addressed. We need to go back to a simpler way of life. Capitalism only really feeds the wealthy off the back of a false belief through advertising and propaganda that one can climb the ladder.
It is ultimately due to its inherent flaws, including unsustainable practices, widening inequality, and a focus on short-term profit that neglects long-term societal and environmental consequences. I'd argue that the current system is unsustainable and needs to be reoriented towards a more inclusive and sustainable model.
How? Who? When? No idea but it would be better to plan and prepare and start the changes required rather than wait till its forced on us."
Kevin Anderson has a great quote on that - "There are now no non-radical futures* The choice is between immediate and profound social change or waiting a little longer for chaotic and violent social change"
I see degrowth growing in momentum, but definitely a bit cynical about that happening especially with how it would impact negatively a very powerful but small minority of the global population, and would require serious international cooperation to happen where we're in an era where cooperation attempts like that will break down as many seek to focus only on short term interests instead of recognising long term consequences to that.
May need to take stock in what it means to be a self aware intelligent species on this ancient planet and recognise the sheer absurd beauty of even reaching this point, even if future outlooks at this point are not great at all to say the least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"
Global warming is caused by capitalist politicians.
They are the ones who encourage population and economic growth.
I have never wanted either.
Capitalism as we know it needs a reset, a serious change for any serious impact on global warming. That is not popular, won't be popular and hence will not be addressed. We need to go back to a simpler way of life. Capitalism only really feeds the wealthy off the back of a false belief through advertising and propaganda that one can climb the ladder.
It is ultimately due to its inherent flaws, including unsustainable practices, widening inequality, and a focus on short-term profit that neglects long-term societal and environmental consequences. I'd argue that the current system is unsustainable and needs to be reoriented towards a more inclusive and sustainable model.
How? Who? When? No idea but it would be better to plan and prepare and start the changes required rather than wait till its forced on us."
(thumb
It's sad that we as a species are so dangerous and inflexible. And that we've got the leaders that we have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan 51 weeks ago
Kilkenny and Waterford |
"Climates always changing naturally. Millions of years ago it was tropical in the uk. Then the ice age happened. We are now in a fairly "warm period". Doubt any of that was caused by man!"
Previous climate changes aren't some deeply kept secret. There even was a kid's movie franchise made about the most previous ice age for fecks sake.
What's different here is rate of change, and it is due to us in our rapid progress reaching a point where we could alter incredibly complex systems we didn't understand and don't yet understand completely.
When it's natural factors like milankovitch cycles, albedo, biomass, solar activity and volcanic activity and their effects on the atmosphere or oceans responsible, you usually see very slow changes occuring over 10,000s of years giving life and the various systems which dissipate heat energy throughout the Earth plenty time to adapt and shift gradually.
There is also the occasional very quick changes that occur (sometimes just regional, but sometimes globally) and they often come with mass extinction events.
This current one we're going through is very rapid. It may seem slow to us because our scale of time is based on our own incredibly short lifespans, but that shields us from seeing these things at the scales they usually happen.
To put in in context, the worst mass extinction event that happened on the planet wasn't the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, but the "Great Dying" that occured between the Permian Triassic era. It was an era with a lot of volcanic activity but one of the very important factors that went with that was a massive global climactic change and ocean acidification that lead to about 90% of life being wiped out.
The rate of change during that time was 5-6°C over 10,000 to 30,000 years and was utterly devastating for the ecosystems that had adapted to a norm that simply was no more anymore. At current rates, we're looking at that in a fraction of the timespan.
Regardless of whether mankind wakes up and deals with this, or we fail miserably and bring with us most other complex life we share this ancient planet with, I do have hope that in a few million years, this place will be flourishing with life again, and likely unimaginable varieties of new life filling the niches left empty, like how the removal of most of the dinosaur species from the planet lead to the beautiful diversification of the few survivors.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"Climates always changing naturally. Millions of years ago it was tropical in the uk. Then the ice age happened. We are now in a fairly "warm period". Doubt any of that was caused by man!"
Thankfully, we're able to very precisely attribute what has been causing each part of the additional part of the heating - you may have missed this further up in this thread.
Natural causes are continuous and will likely last until the world ends. These natural causes are currently an almost insignificant component of the heating that's been occurring since the start of the industrial revolution. Over 90% has been caused by human activity. Each component of the contribution is finely detailed.
The causes of the current global heating is a long settled detail. Our only controllable factor was what we might do about it and thus what the impacts - as well as the scale of them - upon all of life on earth, including our own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"Want to bring global temps down then quickest wY to do that get rid of about 4 billion people, less people less pollution "
The huge bulk of the very poor have much lower contributions, compared with the relatively richer. Much of western society would have to be culled, based on your proposal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Want to bring global temps down then quickest wY to do that get rid of about 4 billion people, less people less pollution
The huge bulk of the very poor have much lower contributions, compared with the relatively richer. Much of western society would have to be culled, based on your proposal "
i reackon if we wiped out china that would halve the amount of pollution straight away, but only problem with that is we would have to find someone else to make all our cheap tat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *appyPandaMan 51 weeks ago
Kilkenny and Waterford |
"Want to bring global temps down then quickest wY to do that get rid of about 4 billion people, less people less pollution "
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x#:~:text=The%20wealthiest%2010%25%20of%20the,tenth%20of%20global%20emissions3.
It's not equal. Eating one billionaire would do more for the environment than 10,000 people going vegan.
There's been plenty studies through the years showing the incredibly unequal levels of impact between population groups, and the top 10% of the global population does far more damage than the bottom 50% combined, especially in their political and economic power. It's their total capture and domination of our political systems that has so many scientists so cynical these days about COP meetings which are more like green washing events for politicians to pretend we're in good hands than anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Want to bring global temps down then quickest wY to do that get rid of about 4 billion people, less people less pollution "
at one person a second it would take 126 years even a thousand a second it would still take some time, and the added problem how are they going to be cooked pyres or on gas mark 6 and the heat that would create would negate the effectiveness of your plan.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 51 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"Want to bring global temps down then quickest wY to do that get rid of about 4 billion people, less people less pollution
at one person a second it would take 126 years even a thousand a second it would still take some time, and the added problem how are they going to be cooked pyres or on gas mark 6 and the heat that would create would negate the effectiveness of your plan.
"
I note that those who suggest mass murder are never including themselves amongst those who would be dispatched, even though they will be amongst the most Carbon emitting group |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Want to bring global temps down then quickest wY to do that get rid of about 4 billion people, less people less pollution
at one person a second it would take 126 years even a thousand a second it would still take some time, and the added problem how are they going to be cooked pyres or on gas mark 6 and the heat that would create would negate the effectiveness of your plan.
I note that those who suggest mass murder are never including themselves amongst those who would be dispatched, even though they will be amongst the most Carbon emitting group"
if only a virus came along that took out a load of people,oh yea we had one of those but people listend to there goverments and hid indoors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Folk dismiss sceptics of how governments have approached the issue, which often tends to be poorly thought out schemes to help their wealthy business and land owners chums. It doesn't mean they don't think there's an issue, just that the way governments are scamming us all now isn't the way.
Logically if humans cause climate change then the only solution is less humans. Eugenics programs in them most densely populated countries or poorest performing economically need to be done.
Stop folk breeding by sterilisation, get less people, and in turn less impact on the environment. Rely on the state handouts by age 25? Sterilised. Simple really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Global warming is caused by capitalist politicians.
They are the ones who encourage population and economic growth.
I have never wanted either.
Capitalism as we know it needs a reset, a serious change for any serious impact on global warming. That is not popular, won't be popular and hence will not be addressed. We need to go back to a simpler way of life. Capitalism only really feeds the wealthy off the back of a false belief through advertising and propaganda that one can climb the ladder.
It is ultimately due to its inherent flaws, including unsustainable practices, widening inequality, and a focus on short-term profit that neglects long-term societal and environmental consequences. I'd argue that the current system is unsustainable and needs to be reoriented towards a more inclusive and sustainable model.
How? Who? When? No idea but it would be better to plan and prepare and start the changes required rather than wait till its forced on us."
Reset to what? Communism? That’s not worked out anywhere it’s been tried and goes against human nature to try and improve your circumstances.
Or communisms poor cousin, socialism? It’s a great theory to think that the state knows how better to spend people’s money than they know themselves, but the idea is flawed for three fundamental reasons….
1. It costs money to oversee and implement
2. It’s abused by those in power.
3. Some people end up more equal than others.
The notion that everyone can be rich is not possible. Under socialism everyone ends up poor except for those in power who become rich beyond their wildest dreams. Yes some people manage that under capitalism but almost everyone has the opportunity to start a business and make money. Under communism and socialism, entrepreneurs are either not allowed or punished.
Capitalism may not be perfect but it’s better than any other system humans have tried thus far. People always rise up against communism. Why? Because it goes against our very nature.
Pure communism is a noble idea. Every does their part and in return gets what they want. But in a very short time they realise they aren’t actually getting what they want and so the effort those put in decreases. That’s a downwards spiral that can’t be stopped. Eventually everyone does nothing and gets nothing.
Has Elon Musk got too much money? Who gets to decide? Do footballers deserve £200k a week? Who gets to decide? Should a perfectly able bodied person get free money and a free home their entire life? Who gets to decide? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Global warming is caused by capitalist politicians.
They are the ones who encourage population and economic growth.
I have never wanted either.
Capitalism as we know it needs a reset, a serious change for any serious impact on global warming. That is not popular, won't be popular and hence will not be addressed. We need to go back to a simpler way of life. Capitalism only really feeds the wealthy off the back of a false belief through advertising and propaganda that one can climb the ladder.
It is ultimately due to its inherent flaws, including unsustainable practices, widening inequality, and a focus on short-term profit that neglects long-term societal and environmental consequences. I'd argue that the current system is unsustainable and needs to be reoriented towards a more inclusive and sustainable model.
How? Who? When? No idea but it would be better to plan and prepare and start the changes required rather than wait till its forced on us.
Reset to what? Communism? That’s not worked out anywhere it’s been tried and goes against human nature to try and improve your circumstances.
Or communisms poor cousin, socialism? It’s a great theory to think that the state knows how better to spend people’s money than they know themselves, but the idea is flawed for three fundamental reasons….
1. It costs money to oversee and implement
2. It’s abused by those in power.
3. Some people end up more equal than others.
The notion that everyone can be rich is not possible. Under socialism everyone ends up poor except for those in power who become rich beyond their wildest dreams. Yes some people manage that under capitalism but almost everyone has the opportunity to start a business and make money. Under communism and socialism, entrepreneurs are either not allowed or punished.
Capitalism may not be perfect but it’s better than any other system humans have tried thus far. People always rise up against communism. Why? Because it goes against our very nature.
Pure communism is a noble idea. Every does their part and in return gets what they want. But in a very short time they realise they aren’t actually getting what they want and so the effort those put in decreases. That’s a downwards spiral that can’t be stopped. Eventually everyone does nothing and gets nothing.
Has Elon Musk got too much money? Who gets to decide? Do footballers deserve £200k a week? Who gets to decide? Should a perfectly able bodied person get free money and a free home their entire life? Who gets to decide? "
Reset doesn't imply the complete opposite, but just simply a reset and some restructuring.
Capitalism, as it currently operates, is often criticized in debates for prioritizing profit over environmental protection, leading to resource depletion, pollution, and climate change. Capitalism can often exacerbate income inequality, leaving many behind while a select few accumulate vast wealth. This has been very evident since covid. This can lead to social unrest and instability which has become a recent western phenomena.
The focus is too often on short-term profits which in tern incentivise businesses to neglect long-term investments in sustainability, R&D and wealth disparity in tern as we can see has potentially harmed future generations. Public trust in institutions and corporations has declined signifivcantly in the pas 40 years due to various factors, including financial crises, scandals, and a perception that businesses are not acting in the best interests of society.
These are just observations of how I see our over-consumerism culture has started to rot society. We need to rein back some capitalist marked activities and introduce a few socialist distinctive or some key pillars of society and community will will soon crumble.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Global warming is caused by capitalist politicians.
They are the ones who encourage population and economic growth.
I have never wanted either.
Capitalism as we know it needs a reset, a serious change for any serious impact on global warming. That is not popular, won't be popular and hence will not be addressed. We need to go back to a simpler way of life. Capitalism only really feeds the wealthy off the back of a false belief through advertising and propaganda that one can climb the ladder.
It is ultimately due to its inherent flaws, including unsustainable practices, widening inequality, and a focus on short-term profit that neglects long-term societal and environmental consequences. I'd argue that the current system is unsustainable and needs to be reoriented towards a more inclusive and sustainable model.
How? Who? When? No idea but it would be better to plan and prepare and start the changes required rather than wait till its forced on us.
Reset to what? Communism? That’s not worked out anywhere it’s been tried and goes against human nature to try and improve your circumstances.
Or communisms poor cousin, socialism? It’s a great theory to think that the state knows how better to spend people’s money than they know themselves, but the idea is flawed for three fundamental reasons….
1. It costs money to oversee and implement
2. It’s abused by those in power.
3. Some people end up more equal than others.
The notion that everyone can be rich is not possible. Under socialism everyone ends up poor except for those in power who become rich beyond their wildest dreams. Yes some people manage that under capitalism but almost everyone has the opportunity to start a business and make money. Under communism and socialism, entrepreneurs are either not allowed or punished.
Capitalism may not be perfect but it’s better than any other system humans have tried thus far. People always rise up against communism. Why? Because it goes against our very nature.
Pure communism is a noble idea. Every does their part and in return gets what they want. But in a very short time they realise they aren’t actually getting what they want and so the effort those put in decreases. That’s a downwards spiral that can’t be stopped. Eventually everyone does nothing and gets nothing.
Has Elon Musk got too much money? Who gets to decide? Do footballers deserve £200k a week? Who gets to decide? Should a perfectly able bodied person get free money and a free home their entire life? Who gets to decide?
Reset doesn't imply the complete opposite, but just simply a reset and some restructuring.
Capitalism, as it currently operates, is often criticized in debates for prioritizing profit over environmental protection, leading to resource depletion, pollution, and climate change. Capitalism can often exacerbate income inequality, leaving many behind while a select few accumulate vast wealth. This has been very evident since covid. This can lead to social unrest and instability which has become a recent western phenomena.
The focus is too often on short-term profits which in tern incentivise businesses to neglect long-term investments in sustainability, R&D and wealth disparity in tern as we can see has potentially harmed future generations. Public trust in institutions and corporations has declined signifivcantly in the pas 40 years due to various factors, including financial crises, scandals, and a perception that businesses are not acting in the best interests of society.
These are just observations of how I see our over-consumerism culture has started to rot society. We need to rein back some capitalist marked activities and introduce a few socialist distinctive or some key pillars of society and community will will soon crumble."
A business can choose to be “socially responsible” but the purpose of a business is to make a profit. Social responsibility is the job of governments and individuals.
Amazon wouldn’t make money if people didn’t buy from them. But given the choice between traveling to the local high street, pay £4 to park assuming you can find a space, brave the d*unken public disorder, pay more for a product that you would struggle to get a refund on because of “their policy”… or pull your phone out and within a minute it’s set for next day delivery to your front door?
Local businesses can’t compete because of decisions made by government. I once checked out the cost of a small shop unit. When I ran the numbers, after the initial rent free period I’d would have had to double my turnover just to break even.
Local councils view the possibility of an Amazon warehouse as hundreds more jobs and a knock on effect into the local economy. A shop unit in the high street by comparison is irrelevant. They will bend over backwards and do anything they can to grease the wheels….
Unsightly warehouse on former green belt land?….. irrelevant
Road infrastructure in the area not suitable for the extra volume of traffic, particularly HGV traffic?…. Irrelevant
Hundreds of extra vehicles now travelling past a primary school?… irrelevant. Etc etc
All to help extract revenue from the UK and sent it to the US. Governments should be helping the people brave enough to open that small shop unit, not just the likes of Amazon.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"How do you view Reform's view on human created global heating? A denial that it even exists? They've typically been repeating a mantra that climate change is natural and comes and goes in cycles, avoiding the over 99% certainty amongst experts that this heating now has been caused by us.
That might be Richard Tice's view, but I see no evidence that the wider Reform party shares that view.
What they do say is that it's cheaper to adapt to climate change in the short term than it is to try to prevent it. They're promoting the replacement of fossil fuels with nuclear power."
Birds of a feather????
No sir one bad apple |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”"
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK."
Good. Someone needs to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the UK oil and gas industry whose jobs are under threat from Labour’s calamitous energy policies.
Shame that the Far Left no longer care about people’s jobs, unless they are in China. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK.
Good. Someone needs to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the UK oil and gas industry whose jobs are under threat from Labour’s calamitous energy policies.
Shame that the Far Left no longer care about people’s jobs, unless they are in China."
On your point of job losses. The same could be said for the green energy sector. There was a sudden u-turn on the reform members who got voted in and then realised the scale of the renewable energy industry in their own areas.
Like with many other industries that are at risk of redundancy. There’s retraining packages, which would support transitions for engineers from one industry to another.
The policy of linking energy to the volatile fossil fuel prices is the problem. The uk doesn’t need to reliant on the global market. You don’t need to be far left or a Labour voter to recognise that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK.
Good. Someone needs to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the UK oil and gas industry whose jobs are under threat from Labour’s calamitous energy policies.
Shame that the Far Left no longer care about people’s jobs, unless they are in China."
Understanding climate change isn't exclusive to the "far left", anyone can choose to learn about it.
Are jobs in the fossil fuels industry worth more than the combination of jobs in the renewable energy industry, the long term health of the economy, long term cheaper energy, and not contributing to climate change and all the indirect effects of it. I'd say not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK.
Good. Someone needs to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the UK oil and gas industry whose jobs are under threat from Labour’s calamitous energy policies.
Shame that the Far Left no longer care about people’s jobs, unless they are in China.
On your point of job losses. The same could be said for the green energy sector. There was a sudden u-turn on the reform members who got voted in and then realised the scale of the renewable energy industry in their own areas.
Like with many other industries that are at risk of redundancy. There’s retraining packages, which would support transitions for engineers from one industry to another.
The policy of linking energy to the volatile fossil fuel prices is the problem. The uk doesn’t need to reliant on the global market. You don’t need to be far left or a Labour voter to recognise that "
Fab "far left" is completely different to actual real life far left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK.
Good. Someone needs to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the UK oil and gas industry whose jobs are under threat from Labour’s calamitous energy policies.
Shame that the Far Left no longer care about people’s jobs, unless they are in China.
Understanding climate change isn't exclusive to the "far left", anyone can choose to learn about it.
Are jobs in the fossil fuels industry worth more than the combination of jobs in the renewable energy industry, the long term health of the economy, long term cheaper energy, and not contributing to climate change and all the indirect effects of it. I'd say not."
Good to know that you want hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs, with all the misery that brings for their towns and families, because of misguided ideology and a poor understanding of basic economics.
To think that Leftists used to support the working man and woman. They’ve lost their minds.
Good news for Reform though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To think that Leftists used to support the working man and woman. They’ve lost their minds.
Good news for Reform though."
Nothing like triggering a reform voter when a healthy debate spirals with the textbook retorts like “left”, “lefties”, “woke”, “far left”
I’m neither far left or a labour voter.
The world changes. Word processing replaced type writers. In IT, on prem servers were replaced with cloud. Horses were replaced by cars. Steam engines were replaced with electric trains. I could go on. Workforces retrain to pick up new skills to keep up with the ever changing modern technology and the industries adapt. It’s brutal but it’s how industries have evolved and advance.
Just because Nigel and Richard have a vested interest from their sponsors doesn’t mean it’s true. They won’t name their experts. They have no data or models to publish for scrutiny. They shout from the sidelines without any substance.
Stand by what I said earlier. I’d trust David Attenborough over those two and the rest of reform.
As for job losses. Do you not think thousands of people would lose jobs if solar panels, wind farms, and the infrastructure upgrades were suddenly stopped in 2029 if reform were voted in and they put a stop to that? Either way, stop green or stop fossil fuel, job losses is a moot point.
Equally when the points are raised about eye sores with wind farms or solar panels. It is no more of an eye sore than a power plant
Reform have no substance. They spout a rhetoric and play divisive tactics and exploit unrest.
Moving to a fossil fuel energy reliance won’t make bills cheaper. It just exposes the UK to the volatility of the global market
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"I’d believe David Attenborough who has dedicated his life to science and has research and data to back up his science over Richard Tice and Nigel Farage who are funded by the fossil fuel industry and can’t reveal their sources, data, or put a name against their “experts”
Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK.
Good. Someone needs to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the UK oil and gas industry whose jobs are under threat from Labour’s calamitous energy policies.
Shame that the Far Left no longer care about people’s jobs, unless they are in China.
Understanding climate change isn't exclusive to the "far left", anyone can choose to learn about it.
Are jobs in the fossil fuels industry worth more than the combination of jobs in the renewable energy industry, the long term health of the economy, long term cheaper energy, and not contributing to climate change and all the indirect effects of it. I'd say not.
Good to know that you want hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs,"
I specifically mentioned jobs in the renewable energy sector. So you just made this up to be outraged about. Doesn't address any points. Utter nonsense.
"
with all the misery that brings for their towns and families, because of misguided ideology and a poor understanding of basic economics."
This is the faux outrage about the made up nonsense you invented.
"
To think that Leftists
"
Again, not everyone who pays attention to what's going on in the world around them is a "leftist". This is just silly.
"
used to support the working man and woman. They’ve lost their minds.
"
Fab leftist, or real life leftists?
"
Good news for Reform though."
Yes, the ease at which the electorate is distracted and the ease at which people are misinformed is good news for Reform. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate. "
Best stop opening carbonated fizzy drinks then, the co2 expelled into the atmosphere is western decadence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate. "
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it"
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment. "
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate."
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine. "
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off."
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off."
How many solar panels and batteries are you buying and how big is the heat pump?
Boilers are being built to handle hydrogen instead of gas. Pick one of those instead if you don’t want a heat pump
Pick a different EV or go on a salary sacrifice scheme? Or wait for a hydrogen vehicle when you eventually replace your petrol car.
I bet the sales men rub their hands together when you ask for a quote if you are getting those prices. I can see why you’re voting reform 🤣 🤣🤣
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off."
Tell us how scrapping net zero is going to make us financially better off?
Our gas and electric costs rocketed because of the reliance on fossil fuels and the volatile global markets
Scrapping EVs and hydrogen cars isn’t going to drop the rocketing price of motor vehicles. Pick your average German car (Audi/bmw/merc) and price up a brand new petrol of diesel model and tell me that’s increased in price in line with your income? It hasn’t. Cars are increasing more expensive and scrapping net zero won’t make them cheaper
Coming back to your earlier point about job losses. People will lose jobs if EV and hydrogen vehicles production stopped
Don’t want solar panels, get yourself an oil central heating system and watch the cost of refilling it increase every single time
But waiting to hear how we will save money on scrapping net zero |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything."
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
". The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
How many solar panels and batteries are you buying and how big is the heat pump?
Boilers are being built to handle hydrogen instead of gas. Pick one of those instead if you don’t want a heat pump
Pick a different EV or go on a salary sacrifice scheme? Or wait for a hydrogen vehicle when you eventually replace your petrol car.
I bet the sales men rub their hands together when you ask for a quote if you are getting those prices. I can see why you’re voting reform 🤣 🤣🤣
"
“Go on a salary sacrifice scheme”.
Out of touch company car middle manager speaks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
Tell us how scrapping net zero is going to make us financially better off?
Our gas and electric costs rocketed because of the reliance on fossil fuels and the volatile global markets
Scrapping EVs and hydrogen cars isn’t going to drop the rocketing price of motor vehicles. Pick your average German car (Audi/bmw/merc) and price up a brand new petrol of diesel model and tell me that’s increased in price in line with your income? It hasn’t. Cars are increasing more expensive and scrapping net zero won’t make them cheaper
Coming back to your earlier point about job losses. People will lose jobs if EV and hydrogen vehicles production stopped
Don’t want solar panels, get yourself an oil central heating system and watch the cost of refilling it increase every single time
But waiting to hear how we will save money on scrapping net zero "
Right.
So vehicle manufacturers kowtow to clueless governments when they are told “tractor production must increase”.
Then when nobody buys the tractors people lose their jobs because the idiots who kowtowed to the government in the first place have to lay off staff. And we should cry about this. I feel sorry for the staff sure. The management who were too cowardly to stand up to the government I have no sympathy for.
Vehicle manufacturers are losing billions already over the switch to EVs that nobody wants to buy. And staff are getting laid off because the demand isn’t there.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do."
Your question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both climate change and of the efforts to tackle it. It's a nonsensical question that bears no meaning or relevance to the discussion.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do."
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation. "
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet."
Show us your data and science and name your scientists to support your and the reform view
Keen to hear how stopping net zero will make things cheaper?
Still no answers to these?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation.
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet."
Why don't you just take some time to learn about the situation?
You post a lot about this, so presumably you care. Why would you not want to have a basic level of understanding? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation.
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet.
Why don't you just take some time to learn about the situation?
You post a lot about this, so presumably you care. Why would you not want to have a basic level of understanding?"
Why don’t you take the time to learn some basic economics and you might understand why nothing you say will ever happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation.
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet.
Why don't you just take some time to learn about the situation?
You post a lot about this, so presumably you care. Why would you not want to have a basic level of understanding?
Why don’t you take the time to learn some basic economics and you might understand why nothing you say will ever happen."
If you're unwilling to talk about the topic in any way. I'll leave you to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation.
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet.
Why don't you just take some time to learn about the situation?
You post a lot about this, so presumably you care. Why would you not want to have a basic level of understanding?
Why don’t you take the time to learn some basic economics and you might understand why nothing you say will ever happen.
If you're unwilling to talk about the topic in any way. I'll leave you to it. "
Your approach to this topic is the same as your approach to every other topic.
You think you know everything and that everyone else is stupid. Only your opinion is valid.
It’s not possible to have any kind of intelligent discussion with someone with such a narrow mind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The planet has been heating up since the last ice age. Go figure.
Nothing to "figure". Human activity has drastically changed the climate.
And save a few electric cars, has given up on fixing it
That's what happens when the media and politicians work in the interests of the fossil fuels industry, no matter the cost to the country and the the environment.
Looking forward to buying my electric car, heat pump, and solar panels from the local mom and pop store rather than some CCP controlled Chinese conglomerate.
Tell everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine without telling everyone you get your news from the US propaganda machine.
The EV is going to easily cost me £60k to replicate my petrol car.
Solar panels and battery maybe £20k
Heating engineer says I can expect about £25k for a heat pump and he says they are totally useless.
So £100k for all this stuff.
Tell me how net zero is going to make me better off.
You not understanding the situation isn't evidence for anything.
You’ve got no answer.
I’ve asked you multiple times how your EV, heat pump and solar panels are going and you’ve never responded. It’s obvious why. The usual green hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.
I'll try to explain in easy chunks.
1. You seem to think that the phrase "net zero" is the be all and end all for tackling clime change. Net zero is simply one concept as a kind of catch all term.
2. You're the only person here talking about "net zero".
3. You buying lots of new stuff isn't related to tackling climate change.
4. No one has told you to buy these things.
5. I haven't told you to buy these things.
6. You demanding answers about what I buy is absolutely and completely unrelated to any of the discussion points. Is not even vaguely related to the situation with the changing climate or the efforts to tackle it.
This is why your question is irrelevant and why it's not related to the situation.
Thanks for confirming again that all you personally are doing about climate change is complaining about the fossil fuel industry on the internet.
Why don't you just take some time to learn about the situation?
You post a lot about this, so presumably you care. Why would you not want to have a basic level of understanding?
Why don’t you take the time to learn some basic economics and you might understand why nothing you say will ever happen.
If you're unwilling to talk about the topic in any way. I'll leave you to it.
Your approach to this topic is the same as your approach to every other topic."
Thank you.
"
You think you know everything and that everyone else is stupid. Only your opinion is valid.
"
What do you think that I think I know that you don't?
I haven't expressed any opinions on the topic, have you mixed me up with someone else?
"
It’s not possible to have any kind of intelligent discussion with someone with such a narrow mind."
Having an understanding of a topic is narrow minded? What a time to be alive.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Having your own opinion that never waivers is narrow minded and projects the impression that you are always right and anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong...even if that means the majority are in the wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Having your own opinion that never waivers is narrow minded and projects the impression that you are always right and anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong...even if that means the majority are in the wrong "
I haven't expressed opinions here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having your own opinion that never waivers is narrow minded and projects the impression that you are always right and anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong...even if that means the majority are in the wrong
I haven't expressed opinions here."
Indeed.
.
1st Post
Opinion : "Reform are effectively the political wing of the fossil fuels industry in the UK."
.
Fact check : Reform UK has received more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019, amounting to 92 percent of the party’s donations.
.
Conclusion : Correct. You stated an opinion, however it is a fact.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact check : Reform UK has received more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019, amounting to 92 percent of the party’s donations."
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact check : Reform UK has received more than £2.3 million from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers since December 2019, amounting to 92 percent of the party’s donations.
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies."
Other investigative journalists have already done this work
.
Investigative outlets (DeSmog, openDemocracy, Novara Media) have already identified and compiled figures on fossil-fuel-linked donations. These sources provide names, amounts, and context that you can match against the Electoral Commission data to check their sources if you wish to.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies."
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is."
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is.
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments "
Not electric, but there are alternative bio fuels being worked on, that could endanger the profits of the fossil fuels industry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is.
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments
Not electric, but there are alternative bio fuels being worked on, that could endanger the profits of the fossil fuels industry. "
It’s a big stretch between “worked on” and viable alternative. I don’t think they need political friends yet to protect their business.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is.
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments
Not electric, but there are alternative bio fuels being worked on, that could endanger the profits of the fossil fuels industry.
It’s a big stretch between “worked on” and viable alternative. I don’t think they need political friends yet to protect their business.
"
Sorry that was just my use of language. Some of it is in production. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies."
"i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 ..."
So we've established that the post above was not factually correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So we've established that the post above was not factually correct."
NO. what we have established is the irrefutable fact that when you said " ...with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies." it is abject lies. Checkmate ♚ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is.
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments
Not electric, but there are alternative bio fuels being worked on, that could endanger the profits of the fossil fuels industry.
It’s a big stretch between “worked on” and viable alternative. I don’t think they need political friends yet to protect their business.
Sorry that was just my use of language. Some of it is in production."
Brilliant. We need alternative to electric
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is.
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments
Not electric, but there are alternative bio fuels being worked on, that could endanger the profits of the fossil fuels industry.
It’s a big stretch between “worked on” and viable alternative. I don’t think they need political friends yet to protect their business.
Sorry that was just my use of language. Some of it is in production.
Brilliant. We need alternative to electric
"
Was electric an option for aviation?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ophieslut OP TV/TS 38 weeks ago
Forum Mod Central |
"North of the equator has been warming up since the last ice age, global warming is not detrimental to life but global frezzing is."
You seem to have missed out the evidence that the vast majority of the global heating, starting from the industrial revolution, is caused by humans.
I really thought we'd long got past the stage when an intelligent person could genuinely try to deny global heating is being caused by us.
Global heating can definitely be a substantial issue for humanity, as well as other forms of life on earth. Habitable areas will be lost, death rates will rise, as well as consequential problems, such as availability of water and food. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So we've established that the post above was not factually correct."
"NO. what we have established is the irrefutable fact that when you said " ...with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies." it is abject lies. Checkmate"
Well the original guy said "Reform UK has received more than £2.3 million, from oil and gas interests ...". £2.3m is just over 12% of Reform's £18.6m donations. Unless you and he are claiming that by "more than" he meant "8 times more than".
He went on to say "... highly polluting industries ...", but there are no industries on the list of donors
And then I said "... with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies", which is absolutely true. All of the donations came from individuals, with none of them coming from companies.
You might want to re-check the rules of chess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So we've established that the post above was not factually correct.
NO. what we have established is the irrefutable fact that when you said " ...with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies." it is abject lies. Checkmate
Well the original guy said "Reform UK has received more than £2.3 million, from oil and gas interests ...". £2.3m is just over 12% of Reform's £18.6m donations. Unless you and he are claiming that by "more than" he meant "8 times more than".
He went on to say "... highly polluting industries ...", but there are no industries on the list of donors
And then I said "... with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies", which is absolutely true. All of the donations came from individuals, with none of them coming from companies.
You might want to re-check the rules of chess."
you've been proved to have lied again, just own what you said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You might want to re-check your "facts". Donation Watch puts donations to Reform at £18,679,079.29, with none of it coming from fossil fuel companies. There's a full list of donations over £1000, with exact amount and donor's name. Feel free to go through it and point out which donations came from fossil fuel companies.
i checked as you suggested. the very first name on your list and the biggest donor to the party with a whopping £10,190,000 or 55% of all total donations is a chap named Christopher Harborne, who owns AML Global, which is a firm that sells avaiation fuel. now last time i checked, aviation fuel was part of the fossil fuel industry sector. i'm sure it still is.
Aviation fuel is clearly a fossil fuel but it’s not one thats gonna be replaced by electric any time soon. Certainly not in the next couple of parliaments
Not electric, but there are alternative bio fuels being worked on, that could endanger the profits of the fossil fuels industry.
It’s a big stretch between “worked on” and viable alternative. I don’t think they need political friends yet to protect their business.
"
Ww2 - V2 rockets were powered by ethanol, created through fermentation and distillation, just thought I'd say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ww2 - V2 rockets were powered by ethanol, created through fermentation and distillation, just thought I'd say "
We power stuff from ethanol today, it's 10% of what is sold as petrol.
There are 2 problems. One is that existing cars can't run on pure ethanol, and can't really be modified to do so. We'd pretty much have to scrap all existing cars and make new ones. The other problem is that we don't have enough space in this country to grow all the grain that would be needed to create the required amount of ethanol to run everything.
Both of those can be addressed, but it'll be expensive, and other options look to be more feasible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Ww2 - V2 rockets were powered by ethanol, created through fermentation and distillation, just thought I'd say
We power stuff from ethanol today, it's 10% of what is sold as petrol.
There are 2 problems. One is that existing cars can't run on pure ethanol, and can't really be modified to do so. We'd pretty much have to scrap all existing cars and make new ones. The other problem is that we don't have enough space in this country to grow all the grain that would be needed to create the required amount of ethanol to run everything.
Both of those can be addressed, but it'll be expensive, and other options look to be more feasible."
Anyone could think we didn't actually invent the wheel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
This lame argument.
No one is disputing that the temperature of the planet increases and decreases naturally.
What is new is the speed of acceleration and the trajectory of it reaching new highs that will tip it in to an ecological disaster.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
